AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 52
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....81 [NIA] filed by the respondent no. 2/ complainant [respondent no. 2] against the petitioner/ accused no. 2 therein [petitioner] and 3 other co-accused persons before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate [learned MM] and summoning order dated 04.10.2019 passed therein. 2. The facts disclose that the respondent no. 2 first invested Rs. 50,00,000/- in January 2009 and then again invested Rs. 20,00,000/- in March 2014 with the petitioner and was assured a return of double the amount on or before March 2019. Thereafter, the petitioner issued a Promissory Note dated 18.02.2019 in favour of the respondent no. 2 and his wife Ms. Rupinder Kaur Bedi [wife] acknowledging his liability to pay Rs. 2,47,53,000/- to them on or before 30.06.2019. 3.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aforesaid 9 dishonoured cheques before the learned MM, accompanied with an 'Authority Letter' dated 17.08.2019 executed by the wife of the respondent no. 2 in his favour wherein, the learned MM passed the summoning order dated 04.10.2019. 5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present petition directly before this Court. 6. According to the petitioner, the composite complaint qua all the 9 cheques by the respondent no. 2 singularly, sans his wife, is per se not maintainable. It is also not maintainable on the strength of the 'Authority Letter' dated 17.08.2019 issued by his wife in favour of the respondent no. 2. Moreover, the petitioner has also challenged the veracity of the said 'Authority Letter', the execution thereof and the ph....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the respondent no. 2 before the learned MM is very much maintainable in the present form and there is no infirmity in issuance of the summoning order therein. It is further submitted that the 'Authority Letter' has been properly executed and satisfies all the ingredients thereof as everything is arising out of the same transaction and it is a case involving a husband and his wife. 11. Highlighting the background of the litigation inter-se the parties herein, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submitted that the learned MM issued the impugned summoning order to all the 4 accused persons therein, namely accused no. 1: International Trenching Private Limited, which is a Company; accused no. 2: Mr. Guneet Bhasin, who is a Director....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dgments therewith. 14. Records reveal that the petitioner has nowhere disputed the execution of a 'Promissory Note', in his handwriting, under his signatures, acknowledging his liability of the debt to the respondent no. 2 and his wife. Similarly, the petitioner has also nowhere disputed the factum of issuance of any of the aforesaid 9 cheques or his signatures thereon or his handwriting thereon. So much so, the petitioner has also nowhere denied that there is no liability/ debt against the aforesaid 9 cheques. It is also nowhere denied that all the aforesaid 9 cheques were [i] pertaining to the very same transaction; [ii] issued on the same date; and [iii] returned on the same date by the very same Bank. Even though each of the above fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e bank, in the opinion of this Court, the aforesaid being disputed questions of facts, require trial and due adjudication by the learned Trial Court and not by this Court and that too at this stage, whence the learned MM is already seized of the complaint and has merely passed the summoning order. 17. In the opinion of this Court, if this Court proceeds to consider the aforesaid issues, it would tantamount to holding a mini trial, which as per trite law and under the facts and circumstances involved herein, is per se not permissible under Section 482 CrPC, especially whence the trial before the learned MM is ongoing. This Court cannot substitute or carry out the functions of the learned Trial Court. In any event, considering that the pro....